Gooding, David: 4 - Questions and Answers Session One

My first task now is to attempt some answer to your questions. I will read out the question, I will give an answer, and I'm prepared within reason to take supplementary questions to the answer given. But that how many supplementaries will depend on what time is available. Question number one: Could you give some more information on the heart and the conscience, and what written on their hearts refers to? The question stems, of course, from chapter two of Romans and verse fourteen. And it's a good idea to start by looking at the verse again. For when Gentiles, which have no law, do by nature the things of the law, these having no law are a law unto themselves, in that they show the work of the law written on their hearts. So to take that to, uh, each of its details, the Gentiles, says verse fourteen, have no law, meaning that they have not the revealed law as given to the Israelites, popularly known as the Ten Commandments, plus all the elaborations on the Ten Commandments. The Gentiles have no revealed law in that special sense, special revelation. The interesting fact is that some Gentiles at least, though they have no revealed law, do by nature the things of the law. And that is an observable fact. The law says, thou shalt not murder. Nations that have never heard of Israel, nor of, uh, Mount Sinai, nor of the Ten Commandments, do hold that murder is wrong. The ancient Greeks did, the Romans did. There's scarcely a nation on earth that doesn't. And they do by nature the things of the law, that is, they observe their law, even though often they break it. They observe by nature the things that are written in what we call the law of Moses, God's revelation. So that is number one. What is it talking about? They, they have no revealed Ten Commandments, so to speak, the law of Moses and all that, uh, uh, involved in it. But by nature they do things that are written in that law. Yes, they hold that, uh, murder is wrong. They hold that stealing somebody else's wife is wrong. They hold that telling lies in a law court in order to get your opponent, uh, condemned unjustly, that is wrong. The Greeks didn't have the law of Moses that they held that in their legal system, and the Romans didn't have the law of Moses. They had some very strict laws on this matter. You'll see. And so forth and so on. The Gentiles by nature do some at least of the things that are written in the law of Moses, that is in the revealed law given to Israel by God. How would you account for that fact? That they by nature do the things that are written in the revealed law. And Paul's answer is that they show the work of the law written in their hearts. That is, God has put it in their hearts. Not only the basic sense of right and wrong, not only the sense that we are a- aware that some things are right and some things are wrong, but they have a knowledge that certain particular things are right and certain particular things are wrong. And it's universal. Put there by the creator. Now, gentlemen, this is a very important question. I'm glad somebody asked it. Because you will find many who will say that, uh, this is only the viewpoint of a limited society. If this were true, there would be evidence of it worldwide. And the answer is, there is evidence of it worldwide. If you have not read the famous Irishman C. S. Lewis on the question, then, um, afford five and six minutes and start to read him on it. Um, he has investigated the ideas on these matters from different parts of the history and different peoples and demonstrated how the certain basic principles are indeed universal. Now, if you meet people that want to say that they're not universal, you will sometimes hear arguments of this particular sort. King Darius, I think it was at one stage, uh, made a little experiment, you see, the question, are things universal or not? So he called some Indians and said, what would money must I give you to make you, uh, eat your, uh, uh, burn your parents when they die? This is centuries ago, King Darius. What money must I give you to make you to burn your, uh, parents when they die? And they said, I wouldn't do it for love nor money. It would be a hor- horrible thing to do, to burn them. They ate them. So then he called the Greeks, some Greeks, and said, what money must I give you to eat your parents when they die? They said, we would never do it for love nor money. We burn on it. And so Ding- Ding Darius, with his limited intelligence and logic, decided that these things are not universal, you see. It depends on what society you're brought up in. And it escaped him completely that both these nations, Greeks and Indians at the time, were expressing one fundamental thing: you must honor your parents. One lot did it by eating them when they died, the other lot did them by burning them when they died, but they were all intent on one and the same thing, their duty to honor their dead parents. If one of them had said, b- burn our dead relatives, of course not. Once they're dead, we throw them on the scrap heap. Well, that would have been a different attitude, wouldn't it? Not honoring the dead. But both were honoring. They did it in different ways. That kind of thing should not confuse us. There is a general law that you shall not do your neighbor any harm, if you can avoid it, yes? That's a general law and known to everybody. Now, if you drive your, uh, uh, car, and it's optional which side of the road you join, you you drive on, which would appear to be what is true in some countries, it would seem to be optional. You can do it one way or the other way just as you please. But if it were allowed in a city like Belfast, of course there would be innumerable car accidents and people would get killed. The general law, you shall not do your neighbor any harm, if you can avoid it, has to be translated into regulations. And so in Belfast, the regulation is that you drive on the left. In America, well, they can't help it, but the regulation is that you drive on the right, do you see? It would be stupid to say, well, there you are, you see, the thing is not universal. You can drive on the left one country, on the right in another. Well, that shows that all these things are merely determined by your social, uh, your society. But that is to miss the point. The regulations are determined this way or that way. The basic rule that they are putting into effect is you shall not do your neighbor any harm if you can avoid it. That is universal. Yes? But this is a thing that we need to be able to argue with our modern friends who have been trained right from the start that, uh, what is right and wrong depends on your society. These are universal. There is a quotation, if you've never come across it, well, remind me, and I shall try to bring it along to show you it in detail, from ancient Egi- Egyptian custom, called from, I think, the Book of the Dead, anyway. So when they laid out a corpse and mummified it and things, the Egyptians were, uh, in the habit, some of them at least, to add a little book, so to speak, a statement, uh, o- on the corpse, in which the corpse declared his good deeds, you see, because they thought the deceased was going to the final judgment. And this book would declare his claim that the final judgment should show him mercy. So nothing to do with the Old Testament or the law of Moses or anything of the sort. This is their pagan custom, but they did believe in the final judgment. And so the man, so to speak, as if he were writing in his own name, has it. I have not done anybody any wrong. I have not lied. I have not committed adultery. I have not cheated on the grain measure. I have not... And there's a whole list. Many of them expressing the same sentiments as you would have find in the law of Moses. These things written on our hearts by the Creator are universal. It's no good people complaining that this is intolerant and this is your prejudice and pride. The laws of arithmetic are universal. And if you want to be detailed in your argument, then show yourself aware that we follow a decimal system, the ancient Babylonians a sexagesimal system. You'll see we go in tens, they went in sixties. We follow them partly, don't we? The circle has three hundred and sixty degrees, thanks to the Babylonians, of course. That's a sexagesimal system. Uh, the fact that the Babylonians had a sexagesimal system in arithmetic and we have a decimal system. Uh, or we did have, until the modern Europeans compelled our superior English to go over to decimalization. We had, uh, uh, you see, twelve pence, uh, you see, to the, to the shilling and twenty shillings to the pound, do you see, and all those lovely things. Never mind about that, I wonder. Eh, do you see? The fact that we have a different system, a decimal system, the ancient, uh, uh, Babylonians, a sexagesimal system, just proves nothing about the basic laws of arithmetic. They are common. And universal. Mm-hmm. So that, if I have answered, um, uh, uh, what are you talking about when you talk about laws written on the heart? The next part of the question is, what has conscience to do with this? Well, the heart is for the deepest part of man, and there these laws are written. They're not said to be written on his conscience. Conscience is that internal, uh, mechanism that God has put within us. We didn't invent it, gentlemen. Nobody invented it. Put there by God, the Creator. It's part of the human makeup. Conscience is the instrumentation that watches what we do with these basic laws. If we propose to do something that is contrary to those laws, whether we like it or not, we find we have a, a mechanism within us that witnesses to this. Hey, that's not right. Conscience will tell us that. And conscious will, conscience will forewarn us that if you do it, you'll get yourself into trouble. And if we persist in doing it, conscience will make us feel guilty. What for? For having gone against one of those basic laws written on our hearts. Yes? So there's a difference, isn't there, between the law written on the heart and the conscience. You say, why do you bother to make that distinction? Because people will face you and say, hmm, adultery? I have no conscience about adultery. Well, alas, that's true. They don't have any conscience because they've obliterated the conscience so many times, it doesn't work anymore. That doesn't mean that down below, deep in their hearts, that the law isn't written. It's just that they've so brutalized conscience, it doesn't work any, it doesn't, conscience doesn't work. But the law's written on the heart still. That book that I was recommending in the lunch break is useful for its records of case studies of women who have had abortions and known it to be wrong when they were having it, and the effect it has on them subsequently, on the way they talk and what they do. And accounts for the fact that many of the nursing staff, at least in America, and doctors who have assisted in abortions, go on drugs, or resign because they can't stick it anymore, and all sorts of things. We make a distinction then between conscience, the mechanism that warns us if we're going to do something that is against the basic law, or gives us a sense of guilt when we have done things against the basic law. A conscience that can be sat upon so much that it ceases to work. We make a distinction between that and the basic law written on the heart. Does that help anybody? Anybody put the question in protest? No? No? Good. Lovely. Second question, a person living in the jungle who has never heard the gospel, they are judged by their works according to the law on the hearts. Is this not contrary to John fourteen verse six? That is, is this giving another means of salvation? Very grateful to the question there, and for the opportunity it gives me, uh, to say something perhaps more distinct than I said before. I'm not saying that anybody is saved by their works. I'm not saying that, uh, uh, uh, uh, people who live in Belfast are not saved by their works. People who live in the jungle are not saved by their works. That is the universal law. We're saved, if we're saved at all, by faith, not by works. That's salvation. What I was talking about is judgment by works. So, gentlemen, let us think together. The one thing you shouldn't do, and you won't anyway, but I tell you, remind you, you shouldn't, is to take me as though I were the Pope. I'm not Ratzinger. He does it. Uh, uh, and what I'm saying ex cathedra, I know I'm sitting in a special chair, but uh, uh, that doesn't make my statements any more, uh, true just by sitting in this. You should question everything I say, but pray question it by scripture. So look at those scriptures again that says that people are judged by their works. That is what scripture says. We read it here in Romans two. I deliberately read the account of the final judgment. We are judged by our works. Not saved by our works, judged by our works. So is that clear? Yes? Anybody any further doubt about that? There's a difference between judgment and salvation, isn't there? Mm-hmm. Judged by your works, gentlemen, you are sinners. You won't dispute it, I think. You're not saved by your works, but you're judged by your works, and you must accept God's judgment on them, of your sinership and how you can't save yourself. And that your only salvation is through the salvation that God has provided, which he gives you free and for nothing. Yes? We're judged by your works. I read you the account of the final judgment. They are judged according to their works. I made the point that whether anybody is sent to the lake of fire or not, it doesn't say that if certain people's works, having been judged, they were found to be so bad that, of course, they had to be put sent to the lake of fire, where some people's works that were found to be just a little bit bad, but not all that bad, were allowed into heaven. Doesn't say that. Very clear, they're judged according to their works. But what determines whether someone is sent to the lake of fire or not? Whether the name is written in the book of life or not. It's very clear, very precise. Yes? So, have I there made myself quite clear? But now I want to answer the second half of this question. Is this not contrary to John fourteen verse six? So let's look at John fourteen verse six to see what John fourteen verse six says. Here is our Lord speaking. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes unto the Father but by me. And I can add to that, just to show I believe that, I- I- I sincerely believe it. I can add to that the words that the apostle spoke before the Sanhedrin. Shall we look at them? Acts chapter uh four. This is Acts four. Peter talking to the Sanhedrin, verse ten to twelve. Be it known unto you all and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole. He is the stone which was set at naught of you, the builders, which was made the head of the corner, and in none other is there salvation, for neither is there any other name under heaven that is given among men, whereby we must be saved. This agrees, of course, with John fourteen six. no one comes unto the Father, says our Lord Jesus, but by me. Yes? No other name given under heaven among men, whereby we must be saved. That is the name of him whom the Jewish rulers crucified. Jesus, of course. That raises us this question has, I think, at its heart. What about those who have never heard of Jesus? Is it impossible that they should be saved because they have never heard of Jesus? And no one comes to the Father except by him, nor is there any other name under heaven whereby you must be saved. Now, I'm going to give you the answer that I myself, uh, believe, because at the moment at least, I'm persuaded of it, unless you can persuade me of it differently. I say it with bated breath because I'm aware of great men of God who would, um, deny what I'm about to say. And therefore you must, uh, ponder it. And you mustn't accept what I say because I say it, as you won't, of course. But you must ponder it seriously and come to make up your own mind on it. There is no name under heaven other than that of Jesus by which we must be saved. No one comes to the Father but by him. I want you first to answer the question to yourself, who is Jesus? Did the one we call Jesus just begin to exist at Bethlehem? Is that what you hold? Who is this Jesus that died for you at Calvary? Would you think he began at Bethlehem, or would you hold with the gospel by John that he is the Word made flesh? Do you believe that? You do. I'm glad you do. You would be a heretic if you didn't. Ooh. In the beginning was the Word eternally existent, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Not was God in those days and then ceased to be, but he was God. He wa- he is God. He was God, therefore. And that Word was made flesh without ceasing to be the Word of God. The Bible does not say that God died for us on the cross. But the Bible gives us to understand very clearly that the one who died was God incarnate. And if he wasn't, you and I are not saved, of course. It will be impossible for a mere man to bear that load of sin and take away the sin of the world. There is no other name given among men, among men, by why you must be saved. The name here is Jesus. I'm simply asking you who Jesus was and is. Now let's look at what Romans is going to tell us emphatically, as it holds in front of us the case law on these matters of how we are justified. The precedent, the legal precedent that establishes for all time on what grounds anybody can be justified. Romans chapter four verse three: For what says the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Pray notice exactly what it says. Doesn't say Abraham believed God, and the righteousness of Christ was imputed to him. Doesn't say that, does it? Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. I stress it because some theologians deny it, and they want to read the verse, Abram believed God, and the righteousness of Christ was imputed to us. That is not what it says. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. I'm going to ask you, was Abraham saved? Was he already justified from that point on? What do you hold, my dear brethren? Tell me honestly, out of the depths of your heart and conscience. Was Abraham justified at that stage and saved? And accepted by God? And made ready for heaven? Mm, vote yes. Mm-hmm. Vote no. Oh. The eyes have it. The eyes have it then, yes. Why doesn't it say, and Abraham believed Jesus? There was no Jesus at the time. Pardon? There was no Jesus. There was no Jesus, yes. But are you saying, my dear brother, that a man could be saved without believing in Jesus? Or what are you saying? Do you see my point? Is it enough, let me put it the other way around, is it enough for a man to believe God and it be counted to him for righteousness. Or has that all gone out of fashion and it is not enough nowadays? Can I hear the grey matter churning around in your, your, your heads? I put the question to you. Of course, but now two further questions get you thinking. This God that believe- Abraham believed in, was he already a Trinity or wasn't he? What do you believe about that? Did God become a Trinity when Jesus was born, or were there always three persons in the Godhead? Pardon? Always. Are you telling me that when Abraham believed, the God he believed in was a Trinity? Yes? No. Which are, what are you saying? Yes. Second question, did he know that God was a Trinity? You don't seem too ready with your reply. Well, let's leave it doubtful, therefore. But, gentlemen, he is cited to us by this serious apostle of Christ as the case law that settles the thing for all time on what grounds a man is justified. Of course, it has to be said, and must be said, that Jesus, who was born of the Virgin, was the Word incarnate. And anybody who nowadays, having met Jesus, so to speak, and read of him, knows about Jesus, who would say to you, I believe in God, but I don't believe in Jesus, then that person doesn't believe in God, actually. Saul of Tarsus was like that. He would have told you he believed in God. But when God incarnate appeared on earth, Saul of Tarsus did everything he could to obliterate his name from off the face of the earth. And when the voice, uh, ca- called to him out of heaven amidst the glory, he instinctively realized what this glory meant. This was the Shekinah glory of God. And he said, who art thou? Lord. Kurios is the Greek translation of Jehovah. Well, who art thou, Lord? He came to see that Jesus is the Son of God, and if you reject Jesus, you reject God. That still is to be applied. But we have to consider those who've never heard of Jesus because Jesus had not yet come. Does that mean that people like Abraham and Hannah and, uh, people in the Old Testament... who didn't know that he would be called Jesus, because that wasn't told us until Mary was told and Joseph. Does that mean that they're saved by their works rather than by the work of Christ? Of course not. And I'm going to point now to Romans chapter three and verse twenty five and then verse uh twenty six. Whom God has set forth, that is our blessed Lord, to be a propitiation through faith by his blood, to show his, that is God's righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime in the forbearance of God. aforetime, in contrast to this present day, as verse twenty six says, for showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present time, that God might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. Notice the two periods. The sins done aforetime. That is not the sins we did before we got converted. Paul is talking about the sins done in the centuries before Christ came. Even the sins done by those who believed in God and tried to serve God. And God did not execute his wrath, but forbore in his mercy. How was God righteous to forbear? Well, because of this propitiation. The work of Christ was at that time still future. Its value, of course, is eternal and covers those who sinned and repented and believed in God in those centuries before Christ came. Mm. But that I better test as to whether my theology here is, um, right. So, all hands show. On what ground was, uh, uh, Noah forgiven? Well, I better ask the primary question. Was he forgiven? Do you hold that Noah was forgiven? You do. Expect him to meet him in heaven? Oh, this chap is. Oh, fancy that. Uh, you must hold that the man was forgiven. On what ground was Noah forgiven? He believed God. Yes, yes, yes, yes, but there's no forgiveness without sacrifice, is there? What? On what ground was he forgiven? Anybody got any clues? Well, if you don't know, well, ask him when you get to heaven. That would be an interesting topic of conversation. Well, Abram, uh, uh, Noah offered a lot of sacrifices, animals and things. Um, was he forgiven on the basis of those animals? Oh, come clear, you either think he was or he wasn't. What, what, what, what, what do you think? You don't think he was com- no? Not on the basis of those animals? Why not? On the future sacrifice that those sacrifices represent. Yes, hombre. Blood of bulls and goats, whoever offers them can't take away sin. They were but shadows of the coming thing, yes. So people were forgiven in those days on the basis of the sacrifice of Christ that, as far as history was concerned, was yet to be. Yes? And because of that sacrifice already in the mind of God, God could have forbearance with those folks. Am I reading it right or not? You think this man thinks I am? That's one encouragement to me. You go away and think about it. I warn you that, that dear believers divide over this matter. And some people will say that what I'm saying is not only wrong, but shocking. They say, well, if that is true, then we don't need to go and preach the gospel to the heathen. That strikes me as an extraordinary, uh, uh, statement, that is. Would you have bothered to tell, uh, the Jews, like Martha and Mary, about the sacrifice of Jesus then? Or not? I myself would go to the ends of the earth if God so called me to tell folks who've never heard of Jesus about Jesus. There is such inestimable wealth in Jesus. Well, of course so. And I'm not suggesting that all the heathen that have never heard of Jesus are cooing up to be saved either. They need to be brought to repentance, hence the pa- the passages we studied this morning. They do seriously need to be brought to repentance. All I'm saying is that when people repent and believe God in those hard off days before the coming of Christ, like Abraham, they were justified. How and on what grounds? Through the propitiation that one day Christ would effect. Yes. Yes? So his death accounts and covers the sins done aforetime. But notice the exact language of verse uh twenty six. For the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season, that he might himself be just and the justifier of him that has faith in... Yeah, now notice the term. Jesus, of course. How could anybody have faith in Jesus when they didn't even know his name? Mary herself didn't know his name was to be Jesus until she was told by the angel. But now Jesus is the name. Of course it's the name. And in that name we go and preach to the heathen as well. Of course we do. And if anyone won't have Jesus, by definition, he is rejecting God, because that's, you believe that Jesus is God incarnate, don't you? Yeah, of course you do. Well, anyway, I've said enough on that topic, uh, to provoke you at any rate. Um, do think about it. Ponder it long and large. And be careful how you talk to other folks about it, who may think you, uh, who... Well, if they say that Gooding is a heretic, say, yes, well, we have our suspicions, but on the other hand, he is a moderately decent chap and somehow seems to believe in the deity of Christ and, and so forth. But be kind and gentle to people. Don't destroy their evangelical zeal, but think through the problem. It is an important part matter when it comes to the justice of God's judgments, gentlemen. Um, yeah, I must hurry on. You said it in Romans, creation doesn't portray the Godhead, but in Romans, uh, ten twenty it does. So let's read Romans ten twenty. Mm-hmm. No, that can't be Romans ten twenty. I think it must be something else. Romans one verse twenty. I'm sorry. Romans one verse twenty. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power. And, well, here I must ask you to tell me what your translation is. Does your translation at that point say, and Godhead? It does? I ask what translation you have. Old King James. The Old King James, and they talk about his Godhead. Well, good for them. Uh, you'll say, aha. But now we have to think very clearly in our minds here, uh, about the, uh, uh, exact terminology. In English, we have two words, Godhood and Godhead. Godhood means it talks about the essence of God, his being, that he is God and not man. He is God and not an angel. He is the uncreated God. That's his Godhood, the nature of God in his being. Godhead in modern English is a reflection in the light of scripture on the persons of the, of the Godhead, as we say. The Godhead is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each is God, equally God, yet there are three distinct persons, not three distinct people, but three distinct persons. That is normally what we nowadays mean by Godhead. What Romans is saying, by its Greek word theotes, is that as you look at creation, you see the godhood, you see that there, God is God. He's creator. He's the everlasting God. He, uh, had no beginning nor end. He is God and not man. He's not an angel. He is the uncreated. That's the nature of God. He's godhood, and that certainly is what the Greek word that underlines the translation here means. Godhead, that God is a Trinity. Now that, uh, m- many people never knew and only came to know clearly by the incarnation of our Lord and his claim to be equal with the Father, and his resurrection. And we have come to know that God is in fact a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I'm not sure that the Bible means that by just by looking at creation, you could im- you could deduce that God is a Trinity. I don't know how it would be done. You would redu- reduce that there is a God, scarcely that there is a Trinity. The Son which is in the bosom of the Father has declared him, and she told him out, now we know that God is a Trinity. But the pagan, so to speak, is not told that, uh, creation reveals to him that there is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Reveals to him that there is God, whom now we know is a Trinity. My questioner asked me, is this a translation issue? Answer, sir, yes. Yes, it is a translation issue. I haven't anything to write it up on, but there are two words of Greek, in Greek, theotes and theotes. They are different. Theotes means the nature of God, Godhood. Theotes means divinity, one of the three persons of the Godhead. Now, I've got a lot of questions, but to be honest with them, uh, I shall answer as many as I can in the next four minutes, but I shall reserve the answers to the others to our next session, God willing. Homosexuality, is it in any way natural, genetic, or is it just people suppressing the truth. I am not a medical man nor a scientist. I've heard it said that there is a gene for homosexuality. I know of other scientists, medics, uh, interested in the the cell and genetics who say there is no one gene for homosexuality. It could be that tendencies towards homosexuality are brought about in some people by unfortunate experiences in childhood, and where true relationship between father and son and mother and son have been impaired, as often nowadays is horribly so, that that can induce a tendency towards homosexuality. From that point of view, those that suffer those things should have our sympathy, or at least our compassion. That doesn't justify the practice of homosexuality. Some people, by traumatic upbringing, are given to violence. That doesn't justify the practice of violence. Some people, by whatever cause, are given to short tempers and explosions of temper. That doesn't justify it. We all of us have various wrong incarnations, part of the wreckage of Adam's sin. That doesn't excuse us from the practice of those wrong deeds that spring from those wrong, uh, incarnations. And if you want the evidence of law written in our hearts. And you come back to the law written on our hearts, gentlemen, and you observe how this is also linked with the fact of a creator. If there's no creator, then our bodies are accidents in the end of evolution. If there's a creator who made our bodies, then of course the very design of them carries a witness to his purpose. And of all the things about human bodies, the mechanism of sex declares the purpose of sex. Of all the unnatural things, that is things against nature, as Paul puts it in Romans chapter one, verse twenty six, God gave them up unto vile passions, for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men leaving the natural use. Homosexuality goes against nature itself and the evidence of the purpose of the mechanisms of the human body. How do you approach someone who trusts in good works to get to heaven? Well, that's a different question. How should we encourage good works in our preaching? Explain chapter three and four. This is three and four of Romans. Um, Four says, God forbid, let, yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar, as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy words and mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment. Well, um, somebody trusts in good works to get to heaven, I should take them straight to the passages such as we've read and shall read in chapter three of Romans, and chapter four, and chapter five, and Titus chapter three, and Ephesians chapter two. to the constant witness of the New Testament that there is a salvation that does not depend, a salvation does not depend on works, it is a gift. And then I should point to the underlying things why it has to be a gift and not works. Because God's final evaluation of our works is that we have sinned in the past and do still come short of the glory of God. That is God's estimation of our works. Yes? And that is where it often, uh, as you find it difficult with people who trust in good works to get to heaven, that they are not prepared for that radical repentance that we met in, uh, uh, Romans chapter three. They'll agree that they've done some things wrong, like s- lying or stealing or something or other, but that their sins are such that they stand with their mouth shut before God, under the penalty of the law, and cannot save themselves. That they are not prepared to admit. And if they are not prepared to admit that, there is no salvation. For the terms of re- of salvation are repentance towards God, that is accepting God's verdict, and faith in the Lord Jesus. Yeah? That is very important. And finally, for this thing, how should we encourage good works in our preaching? Depends who you're talking to. If you're talking to believers, well, the epistles abound with the exhortation that we are to do good works. And if our work is found seriously defective at the judgment seat of Christ, because our works will be judged. Our Christians, Christians are judged by their works, so says scripture. And if at the judgment seat of Christ, the fire of God's judgment, of Christ's judgment, notice the metaphor. The fire of his judgments, the fire shall test everybody's work, of what sort it is. Isn't quite the Sunday school prize giving, you know. The fire shall trust, test each man's work of what quality it is. If it survives the fire of Christ's criticism, we shall have a reward, and the work will abide, of course. Something to show for all eternity, and a reward on top. If the fire of his criticism and judgment consumes our work and it's burned up, we shall suffer loss. Nothing to show for it. But then scripture adds an important point. The man, if any, to whom this happens, he himself shall be saved. How can that be if all his works are burned up? Well, because salvation never did depend on works anyway. He himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. If you want a vivid story to etch it on your mind, you could think of Lot. He was a righteous man. God saved him out of Sodom. Ooh. Yet so as by fire. His life's work virtually burned up. Saved, two Peter two would tell you he was a saved man, he was a just man, but his works. That was rather serious. So for believers, yes, the plain straightforward encouragement to do good works. Yes, but the last section of Romans will point us to our motivation. I beseech you by the mercies of God. Christ died for us that he might be Lord. Yes. How would you encourage unconverted? What I meant in my earlier talk was that we must be careful in preaching the gospel and telling people our good works are like filthy rags, lest we give the impression that God is against good works on the part of unbelievers. You cannot be saved by works. Our works come short. But that doesn't mean that the unbeliever can say, well, as long as I'm an unbeliever, I can live as I like because my works don't count. That is not true. And you see the case of Cornelius. To have told Cornelius, your works are filthy rags, don't talk to me about your works, would be nonsense. The angel told him his good works had come up before God as a memorial. He wasn't saved by his works. And when the solemn scriptures tell us that the, uh, uh, the unregenerate will be judged by their works, it shall be more tolerable for some than others, then we see again that we must not give the impression to the unconverted that it doesn't matter whether they do good works or bad, and that God is against good works. Of course he's not. And sometimes unbelievers can be full of good of, more full of good works than we believers. Yes? But of course, it has to be made clear that it's not by their good works that they can earn salvation. Yeah. Now, therefore, it's at ten past, no, it's not that extreme, it's only eight minutes past four. And I'm going to leave these other questions for next occasion, begging the pardon of whoever it was that wrote them. But since you're all pledged on such solemn oaths to come next time, um, I shall deal with them then, and your questions will not be in vain.